These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP: "Griefing" policy question

Author
Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2011-10-08 06:57:38 UTC
SILENCE ALL OF YOU!

If you listen carefully, you can hear someone reading a petition, typing a cookie-cutter response, then logging on and undocking his suicide alt to kill another Mackinaw there I said it.

Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.

The Apostle
Doomheim
#42 - 2011-10-08 07:00:49 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The Apostle wrote:


And this remains my point of contention. Empire is NOT supposed to be a stomping ground or Thunderdome per se...


Says who?

Using your own argument, if non consensual PvP wasn't "supposed" to happen in hi-sec, we wouldn't be able to do it at all. It would have been hugely simpler for CCP to simply make us unable to lock each other in Empire than faff about with all this CONCORD stuff.

This supposition that Empire is "supposed" to be safe has come about purely because it has been a few years since any group has made the effort to demonstrate that it isn't.

People can make massive fortunes in Empire. It's not a ~specialrules~ newbie starting area. (The new player spawning systems have a couple of special rules about can baiting and such but that's all).

I'll try and restate The very, very obvious in words of one syllable, so that you can't possibly fail to understand:

YOUR. SHIP. IS. AT. RISK. AS. SOON. AS. YOU. CLICK. UN. DOCK.

For the 10th time - I am not arguing "consensual PvP".

Let me make this clear - YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY NEED TO BLOW UP SHIPS TO STOMP EMPIRE.

Have we got that bit yet?

The simple threat of and/or active blockading can easily prevent anything/everything in game from being done without killing a single ship. Consensual or otherwise!

It's the ability of massive NON empire alliances to do so that is the concern.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#43 - 2011-10-08 07:01:59 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

TL;DR Yes, we've established that it IS allowed under current mechanics.

My question: Should it be?



Of course.

Why should players in hi-sec be immune to organised violence? They sell products for the same ISK, they're competing in the same game, on the same shard, in an MMO that's explicitly and openly advertised as dark, cut-throat and ruthless.

They get a compelling advantage in that anyone who attacks them will lose their ship, regardless of any other outcome. They're not "helpless" vs the goon campaign, it's just that they've been able to operate in a selfish, disorganised, inattentive way up until now because no organised group has had sufficient motivation to bother trying to overcame that huge inbuilt advantage they get from CONCORD protection. What the complaining about is nothing more than "Circumstances have changed and I will suffer a disadvantage unless I adapt the way I play".

Option 1: whine and cry for mommy CCP to bend the rules even further
Option 2: organise, co-operate, adapt, survive, prevail.

Since everyone knows that goons are shrieking brain-damaged baboons with the attention span of a mayfly on meth, I'm sure it shouldn't prove a problem for the intelligent, thoughtful, mature and well-adjusted inhabitants of hi-sec to out-think and out-organise them.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#44 - 2011-10-08 07:07:00 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The Apostle wrote:


And this remains my point of contention. Empire is NOT supposed to be a stomping ground or Thunderdome per se...


Says who?

Using your own argument, if non consensual PvP wasn't "supposed" to happen in hi-sec, we wouldn't be able to do it at all. It would have been hugely simpler for CCP to simply make us unable to lock each other in Empire than faff about with all this CONCORD stuff.

This supposition that Empire is "supposed" to be safe has come about purely because it has been a few years since any group has made the effort to demonstrate that it isn't.

People can make massive fortunes in Empire. It's not a ~specialrules~ newbie starting area. (The new player spawning systems have a couple of special rules about can baiting and such but that's all).

I'll try and restate The very, very obvious in words of one syllable, so that you can't possibly fail to understand:

YOUR. SHIP. IS. AT. RISK. AS. SOON. AS. YOU. CLICK. UN. DOCK.

For the 10th time - I am not arguing "consensual PvP".

Let me make this clear - YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY NEED TO BLOW UP SHIPS TO STOMP EMPIRE.

Have we got that bit yet?

The simple threat of and/or active blockading can easily prevent anything/everything in game from being done without killing a single ship. Consensual or otherwise!

It's the ability of massive NON empire alliances to do so that is the concern.


And again, why is this more of a problem than the same thing happening in 0.0? Are hi-sec players special people who are entitled to make ISK forever with no risk?

If my alliance is fighting another alliance, would you have a problem with us attempting to deny that alliance the use of their anomalies and moons?

If we discover that they're importing ships via jump freighters, would we be entitled to suicide gank those freighters in hi-sec?

If we discover that they have an alt corp that mines ice in hi-sec to fuel their supers and POS, would we be entitled to gank that corp?

If we discover that they're buying ice products from a group of miners in an NPC corp working together to supply a contract to the alliance I'm fighting, would we be entitled to gank those NPC corp guys?

At what point does the chain of involvement stop? Answer: it doesn't. If I can derive sufficient advantage from suicide ganking someone in empire to bother doing so then it is ipso facto justifiable for me to do so.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

The Apostle
Doomheim
#45 - 2011-10-08 07:11:57 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

They don't have to do any mining. They just have to buy up all the available stocks and then stop anyone else mining them.

I rule out the economic argument as total BS. Alway have.

Firstly, the G**N's campaign would have cost 100's of millions, if not billions of isk. The amount of ice needed to be sold to get that back would be staggering.

Secondly, 0.0 POS holders will simply change towers. Sure Gallente towers have moongoo bonuses but it just means more work in the short term. Last 0.0 corp I was in we had 3 months supply on hand. Minor blip. Thus no immediate or short term market for Gallente ice. (most price changes have been speculators)

Lastly, all empire POS holders can just change faction. Again, no market for Gallente ice.

Other reasons?
Restricting Oxy using cap fuels may have a strategic effect but only if the G**N's campaign was sustained for the long term AND they had a view to invade someone. Both is unlikely.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]

Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2011-10-08 07:13:48 UTC
Oh my god the tears in this thread are more delicious than the Jimmy John's I just had


Also, who the hell are these "G**Ns" you keep mentioning? I don't know of anyone called a G**N. Most people just add a (DOT) at the end of their alliance name to sound cool, you see.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2011-10-08 07:14:09 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

They don't have to do any mining. They just have to buy up all the available stocks and then stop anyone else mining them.

I rule out the economic argument as total BS. Alway have.



Argument from personal ignorance is rarely persausive.

There's a reason people use Gallente towers.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

The Apostle
Doomheim
#48 - 2011-10-08 07:15:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
And again, why is this more of a problem than the same thing happening in 0.0? Are hi-sec players special people who are entitled to make ISK forever with no risk?

Stop wrapping Empire and 0.0 into the same fold.

Empire IS different, has different rules and different players - it also has different motivations.

And since when has this been about empire players making isk? Where'd that come from??

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]

The Apostle
Doomheim
#49 - 2011-10-08 07:17:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

They don't have to do any mining. They just have to buy up all the available stocks and then stop anyone else mining them.

I rule out the economic argument as total BS. Alway have.



Argument from personal ignorance is rarely persausive.

There's a reason people use Gallente towers.

Read my post AGAIN. I said as much.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]

Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#50 - 2011-10-08 07:18:29 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
I hear ya and agree on most points but it's this very fine line between "legitimate griefing" and "outright bullying" that I am trying to define. When does repeated and specific aggression against a very small player band become griefing?




I've found your problem, buttercup - it's not your job to define it, it's CCP's job

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

The Apostle
Doomheim
#51 - 2011-10-08 07:21:54 UTC  |  Edited by: The Apostle
Bumblefck wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
I hear ya and agree on most points but it's this very fine line between "legitimate griefing" and "outright bullying" that I am trying to define. When does repeated and specific aggression against a very small player band become griefing?



I've found your problem, buttercup - it's not your job to define it, it's CCP's job

I could find 1000 posts on where CCP has been "wrong" by player complaint/questioning and changes have been brought about as a result.

True story bro and mostly to do with 0.0.

It's never from Empire because most Empire guys are too lazy or disorganised to do anything.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]

Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2011-10-08 07:26:57 UTC
I'm willing to sell the OP some lube for the next time he loses a mackinaw for the low, low price of 500 million ISK.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.

Basileus Volkan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2011-10-08 08:02:21 UTC
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#54 - 2011-10-08 08:25:18 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
And again, why is this more of a problem than the same thing happening in 0.0? Are hi-sec players special people who are entitled to make ISK forever with no risk?

Stop wrapping Empire and 0.0 into the same fold.

Empire IS different, has different rules and different players - it also has different motivations.



Ah, so you're saying that Empire players should be privileged?

Well yessuh massah Apostle suh, I'll just sit at de back of de bus and leave you hi-sec massahs in peace. Is there a water fountain for de null-sec folks? I don' want to be using de massah's fountain.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Mr MaltaProject
inFluX.
Good Sax
#55 - 2011-10-08 08:27:55 UTC
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2011-10-08 09:20:10 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Who said anything about nonconsenual PvP? It's not "PvP" in the true sense of the word anyway?
Of course it's PvP. One player or group of players opposes a different player or group of players. The first group wants to stop the second group from providing oxytopes to the market, and does so through any means available, including killing their ships.

It's pretty much every type of PvP in EVE rolled into one.
Quote:
My question is WHY (and more importantly HOW) a very large, very financial alliance/coalition can bring their 0.0 might and assets into empire and target a specific type of player.
For one, they're not targeting one specific type of player — again, the player has nothing to do with this. They're targeting one specific part of the production chain, and a part that is pretty important for a whole slew of other activities.

They are allowed to do this (and must be allowed to do it) because this part of the production chain has huge implications on all facets of EVE, most notably nullsec. In fact, everything has implications of all facets of EVE, which is why it is a horribly bad idea to try to section off one type of space from the rest for some arbitrary reason.
Quote:
imho, it's not for economics, that's easily refuted.
Go ahead and refute it. And good luck to you. Especially, try refuting the fact that billions have been made from speculation on oxytopes, on exhumers, on T1 cruisers and BCs…
Quote:
So is the tactic one of simply griefing empire? If so, should it be allowed in THIS form.
No, it's not, but yes, even if it were, it should be allowed because there is nothing special about empire.
The Apostle wrote:
If G**N's can do it now (regardless of how poorly executed it is), what IS to stop 0.0 alliances stomping empire into wrecks? No precedent is being (or likely to be) set insofar as establishing a ruling on it.

And this remains my point of contention. Empire is NOT supposed to be a stomping ground or Thunderdome per se. If it were (as many claim it is/should be) then there would be no need for Concord and no sec status hits for aggression.
There is nothing to stop them, nor should there be, because, again, there is nothing special about empire space. Empire is most certainly supposed to be a stomping ground, or combat would have been disallowed completely. You are misinterpreting the presence of CONCORD: it is not there to make sure there is no violence — it's there to ensure that aggression costs. You can either pay for it with ISK through wardecs, or you can pay for it with items, though suicide ganks. That is all that CONCORD is, and it's all highsec is.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#57 - 2011-10-08 09:20:35 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
What if all of 0.0 did decide to "muscle up"? Is it still acceptable if not even a single empire player could effectively play anywhere!?
So what? It's no different than when your nullsec region is under siege and you're down to your last few outposts — all of which are nearly permacamped. What you do then is that you try to move out of the way.
Quote:
I'm wearing an empire advocate hat and I'm asking that we need CCP to put in place measures to PREVENT Empire stomping by 0.0 alliances.
Why? Again, you seem to think that empire is somehow disconnected from nullsec — it's not. They're the same. Alliances need to be able to stomp all over highsec because alliances exist in highsec, as does activites that have an impact on non-highsec space.
Quote:
The intent of Empire is NOT to smash everyone and everything into the ground.
[…]
Empire IS different, has different rules and different players - it also has different motivations.
As to the first point, yes it is, for the simple reason that all of EVE is meant for smashing everyone and everything in into the ground. There are no boundaries. Doing it in highsec just enforces some costs, and that's all.

And that answers the second point: no, aside from that tiny detail, the rules aren't different. Highsec only means one thing: that aggression comes at a cost. That is all. If this makes players different, then they're deluding themselves — they are just as much a part of the battlefield as everyone else. They're just hoping that this cost will be enough to dissuade wanton attacks on them, but that is also all it is: a hope. This campaign shows that hopes only get you so far, and sometimes, someone else's intent will crush your hope.
Quote:
A total blockade on ice could be a serious setback to Empire. Would it have to be determined as being detrimental to game if it remained in force indefintely?
It's a rather small and insignificant annoyance to highsec — it's a huge inconvenience for nullsec.
Quote:
The simple threat of and/or active blockading can easily prevent anything/everything in game from being done without killing a single ship. Consensual or otherwise!
Good. That means the interwoven nature of the game is working as intended — that all sections of space are interconnected and that what happens in one corner affects the other corners as well.

Put another way, if highsec was supposed to not be a stomping ground for low/nullsec alliances, then the following things would have to be banned from highsec: … no wait, that list is simply too long. Let's instead list the things you would be allowed to do in highsec: fly your noobship. Run missions. Basic T1 manufacturing in NPC stations (assuming the materials are all available in highsec). No import or export of goods of any kind. And that's it. Expand the list ever so slightly, and you're doing things that various alliances need to be able to stop you from doing, and thus they must be able to stomp all over highsec to do so.
Komen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2011-10-08 09:30:21 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
You consent to PvP when you undock your ships, whether you accept this or not. All the fuss is merely the startling realisation that this applies to ice-miners as much as it does to anyone else. There is no entitlement to safety.


Actually you consent to PvP when you sign up for an account. Otherwise I agree with what you wrote.

I am of the opinion that ship killing, even of the same person, over and over, is not griefing. Eve is a PvP game. Frankly, spreading nasty rumors about players, like that TheMittani runs a kitten adoption agency and is secretly a big softy and just pretends to be all goony so his other goonies don't find out, that''s just part of the game.

The only griefing I can think of is real-life based stuff related to Eve - DOS attacks or a guy with wirecutters coming to cut your power (to paraphrase an old story). When it carries over to attacking the PLAYER, then it's griefing. But repeatedly killing the same mining toon? That's Eve baby. I don't do it, but I wholeheartedly support the ABILITY to do it.
Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2011-10-08 10:41:05 UTC
I lost a drake in y-2 a few days ago. The people who killed it caused me much grief; they have been reported.

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2011-10-08 10:48:00 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
So CCP, please explain...

Under griefing rules/policy

Quote:
At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.


Current "fun" being enjoyed by a limited number of 0.0 alliances on empire players is consistently and maliciously interfering with the game experience for others.

Source: http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336

Is the "at our discretion" statement the mitigating factor?



Well lets see ...

If you are few days old toon and flying in retriever or rifter and some 5+ years old toon keep suiciding you every time you undock than its "wrong" and i suppose many GMs will see it as one.

Being in small group of pilots trying to have significant hit on the big powerblocks and failing at that because they will kill you each time you enter their space is probably not considered as "wrong" but as the player driven scheme.